- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:15:42 -0500
- To: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>, John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Cc: xml-editor@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org
As chair of the XML Core WG, I'd like to suggest that this discussion shouldn't be had on xml-dev. At 20:37 2000 05 24 -0800, Susan Lesch wrote: >John Cowan wrote: > >> > May I suggest that what >> > you call the 2d edition follow the naming convention in XML 1.0, and >> > be titled "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1" or "1.0.1," whatever >> > number suits the editors? >> >>A change to the XML version number would make existing 1.0 XML >>parsers unable to cope. Since we are not making incompatible >>changes, a new version would be inappropriate. > >For that there is a precedent in CSS1 [1]. It is a "revision" with no >outward sign of its update except in its subtitle, in the "Status of >this document" section, and the addition of Appendix F. "Edition" is >an attractive metaphor, but using it means introducing another term >or vector, like adding an aisle at a new angle in a bookstore. Of >course, I defer to the editors, thanks. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1 >-- >Susan Lesch >Intern, W3C > > >*************************************************************************** >This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. >To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev >List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ >*************************************************************************** > >
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 12:16:04 UTC